Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Mike Weir in the Chair]

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Forward work programmes

Mark Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 36, leave out ‘before each financial year publish’ and insert ‘publish triennially’.
Good afternoon, Mr. Weir. I am delighted that we are moving on to clause 5. I presume that I should deal with amendment No. 1 on its own and that we will then consider other matters thereafter.
The purpose of the amendment is simple but important; namely, to remove the phrase
“before each financial year publish”
and insert “publish triennially”—I said that word carefully. “Triennially” involved a challenge, and we made sure that we spelled it correctly. Otherwise, three documents might have been published each year. However, I am reliably told by my “Oxford English Dictionary” that our wording is correct.
The purpose of the amendment is simple. The forward work programme should provide a strategic framework within which the new National Consumer Council will operate, so it is logical to suggest that it be published every three years rather than every year. The forward work programme, as its very name suggests, should deal with a period or more than a year. Indeed, the council will separately publish an annual report, so there will be an annual process of reporting on what has been achieved.
This is a probing amendment whose purpose isto establish the reasoning behind an annual work programme. There are examples of organisations and functions that operate on the basis of a three-year programme. A good number of police authorities have a three-year forward work programme, which seemsto work perfectly well. Similarly, local planning authorities have local development schemes that cover a three-year period.
The period can be adjusted, of course. It can be altered, it is not set in stone or completely immutable. The purpose is to provide the organisation with a perspective beyond the 12-month cycle. I suspect that with triennial publication of the forward work programme, the council would be able better to plan and use its resources. That is one reason why wewould like to explore with the Minister whether the  Government have considered that approach. It would sit well with the other publications, documents and reporting that the Government anticipate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.

Susan Kramer: I waited for an explanation of the amendment before coming to any conclusion about it. However, I am unconvinced by the hon. Gentleman’s argument.
The NCC’s work will cover a wide range of different businesses, all on different timetables, and there will be opportunities for issues to arise at any time. Who could have said three years ago that we would be considering a proposal to close 2,500 post offices in the next two years? If that had not been included in a forward plan, the NCC would not have had a position on dealing with the consequences of it. Could we have known three years in advance that we would go through a phase in which, instead of steadily declining energy prices and a consequently fairly predictable pattern of consumer pricing, there would suddenly be a volatile period of rapid rises and declines, with some very poor industry responses to that pattern?
Unpredictability characterises the issues with which consumers must deal daily, and it is inappropriate to lock into a programme for three years and—more importantly—to lock into the funding which, as we have said earlier, essentially follows the forward programme on a three-year basis.

Ian McCartney: Mr. Weir, I am glad that you so enjoyed the events of this morning that you have come back for the afternoon sitting. I hope that we can make progress this afternoon.
I recognise that the amendment is a probing one. However—although I do not say it to influence the views of hon. Members—it was moved in another place, where it was opposed by Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members, for good reason. It might assist if I explain why the proposals as they stand are consistent with good practice and maximum transparency.
We should not confuse the purpose of the proposals with the purpose of an annual report. An annual report sets out the achievements of the previous financial year in the work programme, along with what is coming up. The clause deals with something different. The hon. Member for Richmond Park hit the nail on the head, and I shall return to her helpful comments in due course.
The amendment would cause the new council great difficulties. We believe in maximum transparency, and consumers have a right to expect not only an annual report but a forward work programme, in line with good practice. The publication of an annual forward work programme strikes a balance with the requirement to prepare an annual report in line with financial years. The forward work programme represents the means whereby the new council sets out a programme for consumer advocacy, together with its aims and priorities and the funding requirement for carrying out those aims and priorities.
The issues to be addressed in the regulated sectors may be fast-moving—the hon. Lady alluded to the fast-moving nature of some of the markets in which the NCC will work—and if the council were required to produce a forward work programme only once every  three years, there could be difficulty. In the end, the bottom line must be the capacity of the council to intervene on consumers’ behalf, to take action, to consider research and to make proposals for the resolution of problems, including both those that have arisen or that could arise because of marketplace changes. Publication of an annual forward work programme, on which the council must consult, will ensure that the proposed activities of the council will indeed be transparent, and that it can be held to account for those activities, not only through the work programme process but through the printed responses delivered in connection with the annual report.
Consultation will allow the new council to obtain the views of key stakeholders in determining its priorities and the activities that it will undertake to achieve them. In many cases, organisations want and need to take a longer-term view for planning purposes. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned local authority district plans. Local authorities work on a 10-year statutory cycle, which ensures that once agreement is reached about land uses and other planning law matters, the local authority’s planning department and its elected planning committee members can make decisions over the 10-year period that are consistent with planning law and with the decisions made through public consultation and decision making—including potential public inquiries.
The process in the Bill is different, in the sense that there is a fast-moving marketplace, a need to represent consumers’ interests and a need to accommodate the possibility of intervention by an independent body on consumers’ behalf. The process must include the possibility of discussion with the regulator, with the relevant organisations, including bodies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions, and with other stakeholders. It is therefore critical that there is scope for such decisions to be made on the basis of flexibility and proper priorities.
We need to be able to update and renew that vision each year. Although the speech made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park was short, I am referring to it a lot. A short contribution can contain some important fundamentals. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, who has been enjoying interrupting me from a sedentary position.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—I believe that we are developing a bit of rapport, which allows me to make the occasional sedentary intervention. If he feels slightly hurt by that, I shall certainly take guidance from you, Mr. Weir, and curtail my remarks. However, as I am standing here, let me say that this probing amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford was designed to elicit a little more information on what the forward work programmes would be, not only in a curtailed 12-month programme, but looking ahead to the second and third years beyond that. Although it may be appropriate to have such programmes for a 12-month focus, does the Minister concede that a compromise solution would be for the programmes also to include what might be on the horizon in a second and third year, and to include those things that might be coming up. We spoke at the beginning about the—

Michael Weir: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Tobias Ellwood: I shall sit down now.

Ian McCartney: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not mind whether his interventions are sitting or standing, as long as they are sensible. The hon. Gentleman started off by saying that this was a probing amendment, but then said that he was trying to negotiate a compromise. However, even the blue blood—the raw tooth and claw—of the Conservative party in the House of Lords would not support the Front Bench proposal. There was good reason for that: it is one of those probing amendments that has been badly drafted. However, at least it provides the opportunity for discussion of a legitimate issue.
The balance already exists. The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me: he is asking for flexibility, and that is precisely what the clause brings. The amendment does not provide that flexibility. We cannot use one snapshot in timing, such as January next year, for example, to make a decision that cannot be amended until 2011.

Tobias Ellwood: Clause 5 states clearly that the forward work programme is
“a statement of any priorities of the Council for the year in relation to designated consumers”.
However, what we are asking is for those projects that will extend beyond that year to be taken into consideration. If the Minister is able to put it on the record that the document will include those projects and work programmes that go beyond the year and that that can be highlighted for the record, I think that this side of the House would be willing to support that.

Ian McCartney: I do not question that, but I am resisting the amendment because our proposals provide an effective approach. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that once the independent NCC establishes its work programme, it will reflect the priorities for the coming period. Thereafter, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park rightly said, if circumstances arise where a marketplace intervention by the council is needed, it will do that. It has the right to adjust its programme accordingly, and that is what we are trying to do. The amendment does not allow for that, and that is why the Committee ought to resist it.

Mark Prisk: It is a shame that the Minister is so negative this afternoon; I am not sure whether he had a little raw liver at lunch, or something to make him a little more testy than this morning. The purpose ofthe amendment is to try to elicit from him whetherthe Minister and the Department, and therefore the council, would plan for a degree of flexibility in its forward work programme. I do not accept the argument that having a three-year work programme would somehow prevent the NCC from being able even to contemplate a change of circumstances in the marketplace, any more than the existing clause does within a 12-year programme. I am glad the Minister has at least been able to set out what he regards as the importance of flexibility, with which we certainly concur. On that note, having fulfilled my purpose, which was to get a proper debate going, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 5, inclause 5, page 4, line 5, after second ‘the’, insert ‘measurable’.
It is fair to say that the Government love targets. If the Treasury had had its way, there would be more targets than one could shake a stick at. However, all too often some of them are vague. All that the amendment would do is establish that the objectives should be measurable. I suspect that the Minister will say that they will be, in which case I shall be more than happy not to press the amendment to a Division. I hope that he will clarify that they will be measurable.

Susan Kramer: My short intervention concerns a particular bug-a-boo of mine. These days, objectives are nearly always treated as though they have to be measurable. That means that we end up with distorted objectives because they are shaped in such a way that we can get a measurement. That is sometimes desirable, and I assume that those sort of objectives are within the scope of the measure. However, at other times, for example, in relation to including more women in decision making or engaging disabled people in a particular project, specific quotas and targets bring us into the realm of something that becomes so driven by the number that it loses all sight of common sense. I am in favour of “measurable” being included in the clause, as long as scope is retained for worthwhile objectives that are not necessarily measurable.

Ian McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford on one of the most elegant climbdowns on an amendment that I have witnessed in my 10 years as a Minister in Committee. [Hon. Members: “He has not been doing it for 10 years.”] I have been watching the hon. Gentleman’s progress very closely. From where I am standing, my comment was very flattering and, if I were him, I would take it as such.
I hope that what I am about to say balances both what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Richmond Park have said. The hon. Lady spoke some common sense. I shall assess what the hon. Gentleman said, although I am not sure whether he meant thata measurable objective was equivalent to a target or whether a target was equivalent to a measurable objective. It all depends on the basis of his argument.
The amendment requires the new council in describing projects to be undertaken in the forward work programme to include measurable objectives. It is another attempt to reduce flexibility for the new council without offering anything positive in return. Some projects simply do not lend themselves to measurable objectives. For example, if more consumers switched suppliers owing to an energy supplier and the new council running awareness campaigns at the same time, how would the new council measure how much of the success was down to it and how much to the advertising by the supplier in the market? An element of subjective assessment, including assessment by the new council, will be necessary in some cases, as the hon. Lady pointed out.
In any event, measurable objectives will usually be set out for the new council as part of its budget-setting exercise in conjunction with the Department. That is established practice and the correct process for setting measurable objectives, which genuinely meets the aim that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford seeks. That issue is also covered elsewhere in the Bill. Clause 7 requires the council to include in its annual report a statement on the progress of projects in the forward work programme. The provision is doubly locked in respect of the budget-setting process, the reporting process and the forward work programme. The amendment calls for rigidity where flexibility is needed and, for that reason, I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman an acceptable explanation.

Mark Prisk: I am genuinely encouraged by what the Minister said. As he knows, one our critical tasks is to put on the record the matters based on which those who will have to implement the legislation can work. His remarks have been constructive and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 5, page 4, line 12, at end insert—
‘(3A) Expenditure incurred under subsection (3) must not exceed such amount as may be prescribed in regulations.’.
This is a probing amendment, which deals with the relationship between the Government and the new consumer council. It would allow Ministers to set a cap on the council’s spending. It is important that there be a clear limit on such spending, although within that it would clearly be for the council to decide what it regards as a priority. The essence of the amendment is to gain an understanding of whether the Minister, and therefore the Department, believes that controls are in place to ensure that the new organisation’s remit focuses on efficiency and the right priorities. The amendment would simply give Ministers the power to set a cap, should they wish to do so, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

Ian McCartney: Again, I accept that the hon. Gentleman has moved a probing amendment, and I hope that my explanation will reassure him and other members of the Committee about the intentions behind the clause.
The amendment takes a particularly bureaucratic approach to what we want to do. A statutory limitation on the new council’s spending is not the best way to ensure that consumer interests are met. Expenditure by the new council will be subject to a budget agreed with my Department each year, as is usual practice for non-departmental public bodies. As with similar bodies, it is likely that rolling three-year budgets will be reviewed annually to provide for as much planning certainty as possible. At the outset, therefore, there will be an understanding of the overall budget for the three years, but that will be reviewed each year to ensure that things are working effectively. To take up a point that hon. Members raised earlier, that will allow certainty about the planning process and outcomes, as resources will be dealt with in a transparent way to meet requirements.
Another important point is that the budget will be subject to close consultation—the hon. Gentleman did not raise this in his amendment, but I am sure that it relates to the intentions behind it—between the Department, the gas, electricity and postal services companies and, later, the water companies regarding their respective contributions. It is particularly important that those sectors are involved, since they are being asked to contribute significant resources to secure the NCC’s work, albeit for public interest reasons, to which we are all committed.
When, in a previous life, I introduced the national minimum wage, I always argued that we would need a Low Pay Commission. If we impose a wage settlement on employers and ask them to put their hands in their pockets, there is a requirement for them to be involved in discussions and decision making about the level of the settlement. For a different reason, the process before us is very similar: we are trying to ensure that industries are engaged at every level as regards their respective contributions.

Mark Prisk: The Minister is absolutely right that I wanted to understand the relationship not only between the council and Ministers, but between the council and its contributory organisations. At what point will those organisations and their industries first be informed? I was not quite clear about that from what he said.

Ian McCartney: The minute the process of establishing the budget and the financial resources commences, there will be engagement with the partners, including the organisations that I mentioned, the Department, the new NCC and its executive officers. It is incredibly important that we proceed on that basis. At the end of the decision-making process, we will come to an holistic figure for the three-year programme, which will be reviewed annually on a specific basis.

Mark Prisk: In those circumstances, how is it envisaged that a dispute between, for example, the Secretary of State and the other contributory organisations will be resolved?

Ian McCartney: The best way to describe it is to say that it would be resolved by the Secretary of State, in the sense that there is an absolute necessity in those situations to establish a budget reflecting the agreed programme of work. That has a consultation process in its own right too, and it is important that that is so.
To answer a point that I think was also alluded to, the budget-setting process inevitably includes efficiency and value-for-money criteria, which will be worked up and are not for discussion here. A limit could have the effect of preventing the new council from addressing urgent and unforeseen issues that could arise during the year, and we should not inhibit the council in that way. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my efforts to reassure him and his colleagues.

Mark Prisk: I entirely agree with the Minister that the form of the amendment for which I am responsible is very crude. Naturally, it is a device that we are using, and I fully accept that it would not be something that, were I in his seat—

Ian McCartney: Stop dreaming!

Mark Prisk: Well, if I can delicately put it this way: if we had the opportunity to swap places, then, like him, I would take the view that the amendment is crude in form. However, its purpose was simple. Rightly, the Minister has taken us through the relationships that will prevail between the council and the Secretary of State and other contributors. The financial services industry makes a significant contribution to funding the Financial Services Authority, and the processes set out in the Bill are similar. I certainly found the Minister’s remarks helpful. I hope that the industry will have done so too, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

General provision about functions

Mark Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 6, page 4, line 42, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Council must, at all times, act independently of Government, regulators and providers of goods and services.’.

Michael Weir: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 6, page 4, line 43, leave out ‘have regard to’ and insert ‘implement’.
No. 8, in clause 6, page 5, line 9, leave out ‘have regard to the need to’.
No. 21, in clause 6, page 5, line 15, leave out from ‘must’ to second ‘to’ in line 16 and insert
‘develop policies and discharge its duties so that it contributes’.
No. 14, in clause 11, page 7, line 10, at end insert
‘and provide an account of how its resources were used in an efficient way.’.

Mark Prisk: Thank you, Mr. Weir. Amendment no. 9 is at the very beginning of the clause and its purpose, like that of several other amendments, is to try to establish on the record the clear independence of the council. The Minister alluded to that in some earlier remarks, and we are keen to ensure that that is explored properly as we debate these probing amendments.
Members will be aware that if the new NCC is to maintain the well regarded reputation of the existing council, it is important that its independence and that of its work force are clear for all to see. Let us take, for example, the obvious controversy surrounding post office closures. In that context, if the NCC were not seen to be clearly independent, there would be a danger of its reputation—and, from a Minister’s point of view, its effectiveness and authority—being diminished. It is therefore important to establish the independence of the NCC.
The essence of the argument also relates to research. This is a most important area where the NCC must be seen to have an independent character if is to work effectively, as envisaged in the Bill. In relation to amendment No. 9, I want the Minister to give us a  clear and unequivocal statement not only on the organisation’s independence in principle, but on how that will work in practice.
In amendment No. 7, we seek to address what I would describe as rather woolly language, which could mean that the forward work programme is just a generalised framework and therefore does not provide sufficient direction. That is parallel to a discussion that we have already had.
I have been careful to seek in the amendment a requirement not that the end elements of the programme be implemented, because that will clearly be a matter for the council, but rather that the programme that includes those elements be implemented. The underlying concern is that the danger that a large effort might go into producing constantly updated and, as we now know, annual forward work programmes that are not actually implemented. That is a problem, and I will welcome the Minister’s reply to that point.
In amendment No. 8, we seek to leave out the words 
“have regard to the need to”.
The purpose is to tighten up the language of subsection (6), to be confident that the most efficient use is made of resources, rather than the council merely having regard to the need for the possibility of efficiency, which is language that clearly leaves a lot of leeway.
The problem is that the NCC’s powers of investigation are widely drawn, yet the Bill is somewhat lacking in detail on the prudent expenditure of resources. We heard from the Minister in a previous debate a comforting setting out of the procedures by which the overall budgeting will be guided, but it would be helpful if he were a little clearer on the use of resources. The purpose of the amendment is to seek to put in place a specific duty, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
The final amendment to which I shall speak in this group—amendment No. 14—would amend clause 11(1) by inserting the words
“and provide an account of how its resources were used in an efficient way.”
It has clearly been grouped with the other amendments because it relates to a similar principle: to try to place a clear obligation in the Bill. Some may say that such an obligation would be unnecessary and bureaucratic, but that a simple, standard measurement of manpower and money used would suffice. That would focus minds on providing value for money, which is the essence of the matter.
The purpose of each of these probing amendments is to draw from the Minister a clear set of principles on how resources will be used and to clarify the council’s role. In particular, to return to amendment No. 9, we seek the independence of the council. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the debate.

Susan Kramer: Before I speak to amendment No. 21, I want to make a quick comment on the amendments tabled by the Conservative party. We support amendment No. 9, on the independence of the National Consumer Council, which is absolutely crucial, and I see no reason not to support the tightening proposed in amendment No. 7. However, we have problems with amendment No. 8, which will become apparent as I speak to clause 6(8), which refers to sustainable development. It might make the objective of sustainable development difficult if we had a such a narrow benchmark as is proposed in amendment No. 8, so I have concerns about it.
As for amendment No. 14, it seems to us to be a recipe for endless pieces of paper. We assume that there should be good practice, imposed by the auditors on the National Consumer Council, so that it will track the efficiency and effectiveness of its projects, and, presumably, carry out various forms of cost-benefit analysis. However, producing a piece of paper discussing efficiency for everything it does strikes us as waste of time and a recipe for inefficiency.
Our amendment No. 21 is one of the more significant amendments in the group, and addresses sustainable development. I am conscious that, as a consequence of the debate in the other place, the Government strengthened the language on sustainable development, because of which I do not intend to press the amendment. However, it seems to me that this was an opportunity to express concerns that sustainability should be at the very core of the National Consumer Council’s work. We should have been very pleased if the Government had seen their way to using the slightly stronger language used in our amendment.
The National Consumer Council as it is today has engaged very much with issues of sustainability, and I know that the staff are very concerned that that should continue as a central focus of what they do. In the other place, the case of “Greening supermarkets”—the NCC report of September 2006—was quoted. The NCC called on leading supermarkets to green up their act; it put the top eight to the test on four green indicators. Lo and behold, organisations that had previously looked the other way on sustainability matters were suddenly in a race to prove themselves the greenest, when it was known that that public document was in the works. Before and after the launch, significantly, they improved their performance and commitments.
There have since been two other relevant NCC reports, which were not available to be covered in the other place. “Information blackout: why electronics consumers are in the dark” revealed that shoppers who want to choose energy-efficient electronic household products such as TVs, DVDs or laptops were, in effect, left in the dark. Of 350 items researched, only one—a television—had an energy label sticker on it. Now the NCC is calling for a colour-coded scheme for such goods. The effectiveness of that work has yet to be proved in the marketplace, but we expect it to be as effective as the earlier report.
Similarly, in the same month, a report entitled “Energy shouldn’t cost the Earth” brought together the issues of fuel poverty and energy efficiency. It pointed out that many people in fuel poverty are also in a very energy-inefficient environment. About 80 per cent. of people in fuel poverty live in homes with below average energy efficiency. Once again, that work leads towards a blueprint that may, hopefully, bring change. The report indeed calls for much more rapid smart metering technology, among other things, to encourage energy efficiency, even for the least well off.
I raise those matters as illustrations. I hope that we will get a strong commitment from the Minister that sustainability will be at the core of the NCC’s activities. If he can see his way to strengthening the language further, that is extremely desirable.

Tom Clarke: Rather late in the day, I add my welcome to your chairmanship, Mr. Weir, and I want to say how muchI have enjoyed the proceedings. It is typical of the generosity of my right hon. Friend the Minister that he did not discourage me from speaking to this groupof amendments; perhaps, between us, and with the support of the Committee, we may emerge with more clarity in the Bill.
My attention was drawn to clause 6 and the amendments, because when we take a decision on those matters, we establish the ethos of the NCC as we would like to see it. That is important, particularly in respect of vulnerable groups.
My right hon. Friend the Minister shares my interest in these matters. Indeed, I had the opportunity some years ago to visit a group in his constituency who were involved in learning disabilities. They presented me with a wonderful set of carpet bowls, which remain in my cabinet to this day. I regret to say that I have not yet used them; perhaps others will regret it still more.

Ian McCartney: Give us them back. [ Laughter. ]

Tom Clarke: I say that as an indication that I hope that I am pushing an open door when I make the case, as I hope to do, for the kind of ethos in the NCC that many people, particularly those with a disability, would wish to see.
As it stands, I find clause 6 a little ambiguous. For example, clause 6(4) states:
“The Council must have regard to the interests of consumers that are one or more of the following—
(a) disabled or chronically sick individuals;
(b) individuals of pensionable age;
(c) individuals with low incomes;
(d) individuals residing in rural areas.”
Yet clause 6(8) says:
“The Council must exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.”
To be honest, I think that this matter really must be clarified.
As it happens, although I had planned to say a word or two about this matter today if I caught your eye, Mr. Weir, we were assisted this morning by the memorandum that appeared almost out of the blue from BOC Gases. I should like to quote BOC’s perception of what is going on. On energy prices, which I mentioned on Second Reading, BOC says:
“Generally speaking the market is dominated by very large companies and customers are at a commercial disadvantage.”
That is its view. My heavens, if that is the case, customers who happen to be disabled, disadvantaged or on a low income surely have the right to ask us, “Well, aren’t you thinking about us as well?” I am sure that the Minister would want to bear that in mind.
BOC goes on to say:
“While BOC has great respect for Ofgem...whose duty to protect customers is, while a primary one, only one of a number of duties, BOC believes that a body such as the present Energywatch organisation with a specific and focused purpose to look after customers is required.”
I do not see that that aim has been achieved in clause 6, which is why I am interested in my right hon. Friend the Minister’s response to the discussion on the amendments. Because he has an open mind, I know that he will want to address this point genuinely and honestly.
My concern, particularly on energy prices, which impact on a huge number of consumers, especially the disadvantaged ones whom I mention, is that Ofgem is apparently planning in the upcoming supply license review to regulate even less regarding disabled customers, arguing that that is covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
On that subject, I say very simply and briefly that I was heavily involved as that Act was going through Parliament, doing the job that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford is doing now, but I was then facing the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who had responsibility for the issue. I do not think that he would ever have argued—I certainly did not argue—that the DDA took on board the kind of advocacy role for disadvantaged and disabled people, including people with learning disabilities. There was an excellent debate about people with mental illnesses in the Chamber yesterday. None of us would have argued that we saw it as the role of the council, or of Ofgem, to take that on board.
In that spirit, I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that there is a great deal of interest in his response. We want the council to be proactive; we feel that it ought to deal not only with whether the market is right and whether regulators ought to be focused almost exclusively on that. We think that there is a role for advocacy and for monitoring what happens to people with disabilities and others, particularly whenit comes to the problems in respect of pre-payment energy meters. We can all tell stories from our constituencies of the traumas that arise from such issues.
My right hon. Friend is a person of vision. We need give the NCC the real powers that are important to enable the organisation to act in the way to which my party was committed in its general election manifesto. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give some regard to the points that I have made. I am sure that many people, particularly organisations of and for disabled people and pensioners on low pay, are looking forward to his response.

Ian McCartney: This has been a short debate, but it has covered some fundamental issues. In my response, I shall attempt to be empathetic and sympathetic to what has been said, both generally and specifically. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke to the probing amendments effectively. I recognise what the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, and I shall come to each amendment in turn. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill for what seemed like a tour round the area in which I was brought up. I was very misty-eyed. I shall respond to him.
Before the end of the Bill’s progress, there will be other debates about issues concerning vulnerable customers, which will allow a more detailed discussion. It is critically important that we establish the NCC and that we follow the good practice that exists for current regulators and those who represent vulnerable consumers. The term “vulnerable consumers” covers a wide spectrum, which ranges from people with physical and mental disabilities to people with impairments from alcoholism, drug abuse and mental illness. Itis a huge spectrum of individuals who require sustainability. They require a specific relationshipto look after their needs, to provide support and to advocate on their behalf, to ensure that the access to the marketplace that we give to consumers generally is given to those who are most vulnerable and difficult to reach. It is most difficult for them to exercise the rights that we give to the community in general. We therefore need to build capacity of the structure of services and of the skill match and the nature of the skills with which we provide our staff in the advocacy process.
In some areas, with Ofgem and other bodies, there is already a fundamental change in the practices of companies and their internal workings with consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers. We are all at one on the establishment of the NCC. Its role in representing vulnerable consumers is a moving feast; from the outset, the focus of that role must be practical to enable it to deal with the needs not only of vulnerable groups, but of individual consumers in their own right. That will require us to take the best practice programmes of existing organisations and build on them.
The skill match is important. Those who will be on the front line looking after the interests of people with a disability or other special needs should have an understanding, rapport and empathy with such issues. I know that from my former role at the Department for Work and Pensions. When we established the Pension Service, we had to change the skill sets of thousands of staff in an 18-month period. Under previous Governments of all persuasions, their role had been that of gatekeeper on behalf of the state, to prevent fraud—and rightly so. However, with the Pension Service, their role is now more than that. It is an advocacy service on behalf of people with special needs, and that requires special skills and talent. There will be a challenge, but the relevant people will be up to it. We have already seen the changes that are taking place. When we get to other clauses, perhaps we shall be able to debate more fully the issues around people with vulnerabilities.
I have a final point about vulnerabilities. Membersof Parliament know about it; we have to ensure that our staff have the skills to deal with vulnerable constituents. The first thing to establish with someone who has a vulnerability is a sense of being able to trust people. The hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Hertford and Stortford made an important point about the National Consumer Council and its reputation. It is vital, not only in its advocacy role in respect of policy making but in its role of representing people with vulnerabilities. The big thing about vulnerability is a mistrust of the system and of authority. To be able to advocate effectively, trust has to be built and that means having staff on the front line with the capacity to do that.
I hope that those general comments are helpful about the direction that I want the new organisation to take and why the clause offers a wide remit for it to work with the regulators and work on its role with various groups in respect of the needs of vulnerable people.
I shall deal with the other amendments. I reassure the Committee that the new council will be independent, exercising its statutory functions as it sees fit for the benefit of consumers. Amendment No. 9 attempts to set that out in the Bill and would require the new council to act independently of the Government, regulators and providers of goods and services. However, the amendment lacks clarity and causes uncertainty; I do not say that as a criticism, but as a response.
Does the term “Government” include local authorities, Government agencies and other non-departmental public bodies? The list is not exhaustive; the amendment does not target what it exactly means in its wording. I also remind the Committee that the new council will be a statutory body with statutory functions, which cannot be interceded upon by the Secretary of State. It must prepare a forward work programme annually and consult on it. The programme must contain a general description of the main activities, including any projects; that is what the hon. Gentleman wanted to know. It will be project-specific. Frankly, if it was not, that would be a complete waste of time. It is important that a work programme should mean exactly that—after consultation, a clear, transparent set of circumstances in which the organisation will task itself to perform.
During the year, the council will plan to undertake the programme, and the activities that it proposes to undertake will be in the public domain. It is also important that there should be clarity for the public and the consumer in general about the activities of the council. If the council proposes at any stage to act in response to representations made to it, again, it will have the independence to do so. For example, if the hon. Gentleman had an issue about something that had happened in the marketplace, he might put down a parliamentary question. He might even ask for a debate, or he might raise the issue in Parliament in some other form—writing to and asking for a meeting with Ministers, for example. However, because of the independence of the council, he could directly ask it to investigate without any recourse through the prism of a Department or a Minister and a Department. That is important. How we see the independence of the organisation is very important. If it were not independent, it would not be able to do the job required of it—that of representing and advocating for consumers in general and in particular.
The council should be independent. It is important that legislators create an independent body that can respond intellectually to issues that arise from changes in the market place—I shall come back to the issue of sustainable development. Legislators will have a body that will help fashion priorities in terms of public need and public right. That is important. The council must not only be independent in the sense that a Minister has said that it is, but by the fact that it has statutory independence and an absolute right to operate independently.
I also question the logic of requiring the new council to act independently of Government, the regulators, and providers of goods and services at all times. I can envisage instances in which significant consumer benefit can be derived from joint working between the council and a regulator. For example, they could work together on a particular project. Indeed, clause 20 requires the new council to enter into co-operation arrangements with the Office of Fair Trading. We envisage that such arrangements will cover, among other key areas, the issue of consumer education and how the two bodies will work together to improve consumers’ knowledge of their rights and entitlements should things go wrong.
In a sense, the easy job is to establish the NCC. It might be difficult in itself but, relatively speaking, it is an easy programme of work. It is not so easy, however, as Governments of all persuasions know, to let people know about their new rights or to give them the capacity to exercise those rights. That goes back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Memberfor Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about giving people who cannot exercise their rights independently assistance to get access to their rights. It is absolutely essential that we proceed inthat way.
Concerns were also raised in another place about the independence of the new council from Government. The Bill does not contain a power of direction over the council by the Secretary of State, which is significant. There is no power of direction in the Bill. The legislation therefore contains a clear signal that the council is an independent body and that will informthe decisions that it makes. The fact that the council will be required to report to the Secretary of State is critically important because through that, the council is accountable to Parliament. However, it is a reporting and not a controlling mechanism—it will not curtail the council’s independence.

James Duddridge: Forgive my ignorance, but why does the reporting mechanism have to involve the Secretary of State? Why is the council not required to report to Parliament itself? If the report goes to the Secretary of State, it can be delayed unnecessarily by a Government of whatever political persuasion.

Ian McCartney: When we discussed schedule 1 this morning, we heard about the process by which the council will have a duty to report to the Parliament. I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman has been a Member, but the whole purpose of having Secretaries of State report to Parliament is to make the Executive accountable. There are a range of ways in which to make the Executive accountable: the discussion we are having in this Public Bill Committee, for example, or through parliamentary questions, or—my toes begin to tingle—through the Select Committee process. We can argue about whether those processes are as effective as they should be, but that is another matter. The whole purpose of coming through the Secretary of Stateis to ensure the accountability of the Executive to Parliament.
On amendment No. 7, I agree that it is important for the new council to undertake a work programme that has been subject to public scrutiny and consultation. However, the amendment would affect council’s flexibility and ability to respond to unforeseen changes in priorities that may only come to light after the forward work programme has been published, by requiring it to stick rigidly to the programme. We discussed that matter in more detail earlier and we need not add more to it, or to the discussion on the issue of the council being required to produce an annual forward work programme. The important thing is the matter of unforeseen issues. Hon. Members have spoken about the capacity of the NCC to intervene and to advocate and represent the interests of consumers in a fast-changing market place.
Amendment No. 8 would similarly place a duty on the new council to use its resources in the most efficient and economic way. I reassure Committee members that we expect the new council to use its resources as efficiently and as economically as possible—the Government will be responsible for a share of its funding. We went into the detail of how the process of the forward work programme would work when we discussed amendment No. 6. The only thing that I would add is that there will be, as there usually is, a chief accounting officer. Normally that would bethe chief executive but that would be up to the organisation to establish. The chief accounting officer will have clear responsibilities to ensure that that is the case. The amendment places an onerous burden on the council to demonstrate compliance as stated by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. However, having worded the amendment in the way that he did, he made a sensible and very fair point. It is critical that anybody who is funded from the public purse or receives funds in the way that this body will, from the public purse and from industry sources, uses those funds transparently and effectively.
I will make an assumption here if I may. Anyone who is appointed senior executive has responsibility for those processes. Part of their contract will be to ensure that they operate the organisation financially effectively and evince the normal standards that one would expect of accountancy and transparency of accountancy. I hope that that reassures the Committee that the accounting officer will ensure that all funds are used economically. Furthermore, the National Audit Office will be able to review the efficiency with which the council uses its resources to ensure that the requirements are being met. Of course, those reports are made public and a Select Committee can call them into account along with the organisations mentioned.
Amendment No. 21 would remove the existing provision for the council to judge how best to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The hon. Member for Richmond Park very kindly reminded the Committee that that issue was raised by our colleagues in the other place. We brought forward an amendment that I believe meets her requirements.
The objective of the new council as drafted will ensure that it exercises its functions in a manner thatit considers is best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The term “functions” is defined in clause 41 as including powers and, importantly, duties. In developing policies and in discharging its duties, the council is already required to act in a manner that it considers is best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. That could be in relation to fuel policy, energy efficiency, issues that come up in future energy White Papers and subsequent legislation.
For example, DEFRA’s proposal for legislation on sustainable development that is coming before the House in the coming session. Those will all impact on the work of the NCC. As the years go by, there will be other issues because we are coming to a common approach across parties on sustainability and sustainable development. There will be nuances and, in some areas, there may even be a difference of opinion. However, there is one area in which there is no difference of opinion. Policy makers, bodies that are required to carry out decisions of Parliament, and bodies acting on behalf of consumers or in conjunction with regulators will all have a requirement and duty to ensure that the consumer interest is served effectively.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was absolutely right about the NCC’s work. There is no intention of throwing away any work that is going on now when the new body is created. There will be a transfer of the ongoing work and activities that willbe incorporated into its work programme. The work that is being done by the various organisations on sustainability will go on, but in a more co-ordinated and more effective fashion. Therefore, there is much more to be said and done on the matter. Perhaps before the end of the session, we will have a full debateagain on the issue. There is a common agreement here that the NCC must be a significant major playeron sustainable development when it comes to implementing policies and programmes to help the consumer to make good choices and decisions. The products consumers purchase for sustainability should be effective, and the processes used by the various organisations to provide goods and services to them should be taken into account when it comes to making policies on sustainable development.
The objective as drafted follows the precedent of section 35(1) of the Water Act 2003 which inserted a new section 27A(12) into the Water Industry Act 1991, which placed an equivalent sustainable development duty on the Consumer Council for Water.
I make that point not just about the change we madein the House of Lords, but remembering that inthe future—in 2008, after consultation—Ofwat will compact the process. We are thinking ahead and pre-planning to ensure that any additional activities that come into the NCC have got an ethos of sustainability.
Amendment No. 14 is not clear. It would appear to permit the new council to include an account of how efficiently it has used its resources when undertaking an investigation into a consumer matter or into a problem affecting consumers—generally or of a particular description—under its power in clause 11(1)(b). Clause 6(6) already places the duty on the new council to have regard for using its resources most efficiently and effectively. We have now done all aspects of the financial management almost to death. I do not say that in a critical way, because it is important for sending out signals to anybody who runs the new organisation about our expectations of value for money and effectively utilising public resources.
Finally, clause 7 provides for the preparation of an annual report on the council’s activities for each financial year, which the council must publish. In addition, it is routine practice for bodies such as the new council to be set performance targets in the course of discussions over the budget. Achievement against those targets is monitored by the sponsoring Department. The accounts of the new council willbe certified and reported, as in paragraph 32 of schedule 1, clarified by this morning’s amendments.
I hope that, with those explanations, the hon. Ladies and Gentlemen will now be prepared, first, to withdraw their amendments and, second, to give me the benefit of the doubt for the further discussions that we will have on vulnerability and sustainability later in the Bill.

Mark Prisk: It has been a helpful and rounded debate. I particularly commend the contribution of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill—I always try to get that name right—who as usual spoke with care and passion on the subject. He secured a helpful and informed contribution—as we would expect—from the Minister on an issue of which he has considerable experience over many years, namely consumer affairs, and also about which he rightly feels very passionately, as he so clearly demonstrated this afternoon.

Stephen Pound: This is not germane to the discussion, but as the hon. Gentleman took so much trouble to pronounce my right hon. Friend’s constituency correctly, he may wish to note that he is in fact a member of the Privy Council.

Mark Prisk: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I was so focused on making sure that I got my geography right that I got his status incorrect. I apologise for that, but I am delighted that the representative for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill has been so elevated and congratulate him.

Tom Clarke: I am touched by the comments of both hon. Gentlemen. I have the feeling that I will be remembered more as a member of the Monklands district council, much as I am delighted to be a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council.

Mark Prisk: We are in danger of drifting slightly away from the subject and I will do my best to return to the essence of the issue. The debate has been useful. We have touched on questions of ethos and on the new organisation’s independence, accountability and indeed sustainability. I am encouraged by many of the points made by the Minister in response to my probing  amendments, particularly on the issue of independence. He very clearly set out the independent route that will be important for the consumer council to adopt and to have at the heart of its purpose.
On the other amendments—on accountability and efficiency—I was encouraged by the clear statement from the Minister on the wish to see the work implemented. That is very important, and we have that on the record. With reference to amendment No. 14, I entirely agree on the issue of the National Audit Office being able to participate in ensuring that the new organisation is efficient and uses its resources effectively. His clear statement on that is most encouraging.

Susan Kramer: I appreciate the time and effort that the Minister put into picking up the issues we raised with amendment No. 21 and making it clear that the intent is for the national consumer council not to lose the focus that it has been building on sustainable development, which will be an inherent part of where it goes in the future. He spent a lot of time talking about the issues of vulnerability and disadvantage, but we see that there are relevant places further on in discussion of the Bill where they will need to be raised again. We will look forward to hearing once again what really is the best contribution on these issues from the right hon. Gentleman, the former member of Monklands district council.

Mark Prisk: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

The representative function

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in clause 8, page 6, line 5, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Michael Weir: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 45, in clause 8, page 6, line 14, after ‘any’, insert ‘appropriate’.
No. 46, in clause 8, page 6, line 15, after ‘organisation’, insert ‘, where appropriate’.

Lorely Burt: Sorry for any confusion, Mr. Weir. It is a bit of a two-handed job for Liberal Democrat Members. I hope that other hon. Members will not think of an appropriate epithet for us. As long as it is not Thelma and Louise, I really do not mind.
Amendment No. 44 represents the essence of what we wish to convey. We want to replace “may” with “shall”. A great deal was made of this in another place and by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park on Second Reading. I do not need to labour this as the point has been made on a number of occasions. We are not just trying to split semantic hairs here. We are concerned that these basic functions should have to be fulfilled. Saying “may” makes it optional, but saying “shall” means that it will be done.
What underlies our insistence that we should like to see this is the cost-cutting options that may be involved if we adopt “may” rather than “shall”. The body could choose to sit on its hands and do nothing and that is the last thing that we would wish to see. I am sure that the Minister would agree that we have nothing to worry about in that respect but in that case I should be grateful if he accepted that the stronger word “shall” should be adopted.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 insert the word “appropriate” and give leeway for common sense. Because we have moved from “may” to “shall” an adjustment is needed for reasonableness. If the Government find our drafting clumsy, we would be more than happy to accept any of their consequential amendments if they are prepared to accept amendment No. 44.

Ben Wallace: I just want to pick up on the earlier point made by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill about the very ethos of the consumer council and where we go with it. I am a believer in transparencyin government. My one concern here is that in subsection (2) the council will decide who should see its representations or its information. It is a consumer body to represent us, often against business or unfair practices by other authorities.
It is important that it is not left to the council to decide under subsection (2)(f) who
“might have an interest in the matter in question.”
I would like to make that decision and I think many consumers would. It would be a good step forward if the Government considered, perhaps before Third reading, whether there is any way in which they can increase transparency. If we are to have faith in the system—I notice that it involves many Ministers—why can we not have access and decide more about where things go?

Stephen Pound: I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman’s support for transparency in Government, which is normally a characteristic of Opposition politicians rather than members of the Government. Is he asking for a long stop whereby politicians are involved at the entry point, or is he saying that we should define every interested party? Surely the logic of his suggestion is that we have a massive list of people who fall within the ambit of interested parties, because ultimately anyone could be interested. Should there not be some mechanism by which the new NCC, acting in good faith, can define its terms and, if it fails to do so, will have the sanction of our opprobrium?

Ben Wallace: We should look across the channelat some of the German lander where there is transparency throughout and complete openness. There is no presumption that anyone must decide. The council can put the report in a package, stamp it and decide who to send it to, but everything should be open  for deliberation and for us to look at. Of course, confidentiality of complaints would have to be protected, but the council could just publish recommendations or put them on the website so that we can look and see what is going on. I do not see any reason why that cannot be the case, other than perhaps for the investigative part, which includes sensitive issues. That should be the start point, and reasons should be given for rolling back from that start point. That is the ethos of where the council should be. It is supposed to be the champion for the people, so transparency is a good principle for it to embrace.
That is the main thrust that I wanted to make in my contribution. The only other clarity that I want from the Minister is about the persons in subsection (2) who can receive representations. It states:
“any Minister of the Crown or government department”.
Why are the words “or government department” included when they are not included with Scottish and Welsh Ministers? This is a technical query, because I presume that every “government department” has a Minister of the Crown at its head, but I am sure that I shall be corrected.

Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) for the way in which she moved her amendment, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) for his incisive probing of the Conservatives’ position. I also thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) for his comments, and hope that I can respond to them.
The clear intention behind amendment No. 44 isthat the council should be required to fulfil its representative functions provided by the Bill. I am happy to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that we have given the new council three statutory core functions, which are set out in the Bill. It cannot sit on its hands and do nothing, because it will have a legal requirement.
First, its representative function is critical. The other two are research and information. The representative function is advocacy. The research function is influencing future policy and direction not just inthe marketplace, but in public policy areas. The information function, which we discussed during our previous debate, is critical and gives people not just rights, but the capacity to exercise those rights. Information is critical for consumers in the sort of marketplace that we now operate in, and consumers need to be able to make a valued judgment. The only way to do that is to have the knowledge to make that judgment, and if something goes wrong when it has been exercised effectively and fairly, to have the additional knowledge of who to seek out in the system to obtain redress when goods or services have been sold inappropriately or not on the basis of a legal requirement on the body or organisation that is selling the goods or services.

Lorely Burt: The Minister talks about core responsibilities and functions. The same terminology, “may”, is used in respect of the research and information functions. I understand his saying that  this is so hugely a core function, but there is still no requirement to comply. My understanding of the wording is that the council might decide not to implement this function, so what in the word “may” enables or requires it to fulfil those functions.

Ian McCartney: I was getting to the point that the hon. Lady made. First, let us agree that these are statutory functions, and as such there is the interlinkof the independence to carry out those functions. Secondly, the reason why there is discretion to exercise the functions and why we do not compel the bodies to discharge them is not a get-out clause; this is about ensuring that they have the capacity within their resources and work programme to be able to deal with these functions as they see fit.
For example, the reason why the council may provide advice about the consumer matters under the clause is because it must decide first on which consumer matters it should provide advice and to whom. That is very important. That is why it is given discretion to determine the type of advice and to whom it should be given. The exercise of these functions flows from the decisions of the council and the priorities identified in its forward work programme.
Again, that forward work programme is accountable, because it is a public consultation process. So, this is about the substance of the council’s activities. Thereis a statutory opt-in, as well as transparency and accountability to the work programme. That is the right approach, because Parliament is establishing this body on the basis of giving it the responsibility of acting on behalf of the consumers in an effective way. For example, it may well be that an additional resource will be required for an information campaign. Why should the body not be able to make a decision when that is a priority and part of its work programme? Should it say, “We can’t make that a priority because we have to spend 33 and a third per cent. on all of the issues on that basis. Were we not to do so, it wouldlook like we are not carrying out our obligations effectively”? Such a situation would be nonsense, because an organisation cannot operate effectively in that way.
It is important that organisations are given the maximum potential for making those decisions. We should remember that when they make those decisions they are accountable in the annual report, in the programme and in the carrying out of that programme. It is important that we do not view these clauses in isolation, because each adds something to the creation of the new, stronger consumer advocacy body and they all fit together, piece by piece, to complete the picture. We have set out the core functions of the council, and the provisions in clause 5 set out the need for the body to determine its priorities, including how these functions will be exercised. That is important because of what I said just a moment ago.
The new council will be a stronger consumer champion and will have the benefit of significant expertise in representing the consumer interest at its disposal. We shall surely be in a better position than we are today to determine how its functions might best be exercised to the benefit of consumers. I cannot accept the amendment because it is right that the new body  should have the flexibility to be able to make decisions on what actions are appropriate in the interests of consumers.
The essence of amendments Nos. 45 and 46 isabout ensuring that the new body, in conductingits representative function, represents the views of consumers on consumer matters to the appropriate bodies. I again confirm that that is our intention. Although I do not accept amendment No. 44, the sentiments behind it are exactly those behind what the body will carry out in practice. On amendment No. 45, I give a commitment that the intention behind the clause is as I have mentioned.
While we are able to identify specifically some of the people who might be involved, such as a “Minister of the Crown” or a “government department”, a Scottish Minister or a Welsh Minister, it is necessary to allow the new council the flexibility to work with others as it considers what is most suitable at the time. That goes to the heart of independence, does it not? We cannot give independence and then say, “This independence can be exercised only through the Crown. You can’t possibility do this unless you go through the Minister.” That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. The new NCC does not have to go through the prism of either a Government Department or a Minister of the Crown; that was the point of the previous amendments. It can go direct, of its own volition or on behalf of a constituent.
The clause specifies a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department because the Departments with responsibility for bodies that provide goods and services have opinions. For example, if there were a future EU directive similar to this legislation, each Department would have a view on it and would be entitled to express it. It would be entirely wrong if the NCC could not—independently of the Department of Trade and Industry—discuss with those Departments its view on consumer interests. This is about independence, and that means setting out what that independence means in practice in all circumstances. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that that is what the discretion is about—it allows the NCC the right to work with whomever it wishes to work with. That might mean that it goes direct to the Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists or another political party, or to an advocacy organisation or non-governmental organisation.
For example, there are many organisations that are active in the field of sustainable development and hundreds at national, regional and local level working on behalf of people with disabilities. It should not be for the Secretary of State to determine which of them the NCC should engage with. That would curtail its independence. It is important for its advocacy role that it should have absolute latitude to determine who its partners are. I hope that my explanations have helped the hon. Members for Solihull and for Lancaster and Wyre to accept that the Government’s intentions are completely honourable. We want to give the council maximum opportunity to operate effectively, independent of Ministers and the Department where appropriate.

Ben Wallace: I want to test the Minister slightly more on the matter of Departments. I am not talking about the Secretary of State directing where the council should go. Let us say that we are considering the  impact of an EU directive, or an allegation about a Department that provides a service but is acting against the consumer. It is important that the council should have the right to go to that Department, but surely it should go through the Minister of that Department, because that would oblige that Minister to take responsibility. If it is pointed out to a Minister that his or her Department is acting against the consumer, but nothing happens, we in this place have a right to ask that Minister, “Why did you do nothing about it?” Why does subsection (2)(a) need to say
“any Minister of the Crown or government department”?
Why is the “or government department” added on? Can it not be just that it has to go to any appropriate Minister of the Crown?

Ian McCartney: This is a function of Government. On some occasions, the council will require direct access to the Secretary of State for a specific reason. On others, as part of a consultation process, it will ask for something to be prepared on behalf of the Department for Ministers to review, or will want their opinion consumer issues. That is how it is done. If it were not done that way, Government would grind to a halt. Every day, hundreds of legitimate representations are made to Departments across Whitehall by organisations that have a relationship with Government, seeking information or consulting on the development of policy or its implementation. That is reflected here. It is not unique. It happens on all occasions.
As to Scottish and Welsh Ministers, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, so he knows how that works better than I do. The issue is accountability, and the capacity of the NCC to determine for itself whether it sees fit in the first instance to approach a Department or a Minister of the Crown. It should be able to make that choice.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for the time and trouble that he has taken to give a full and moving explanation as to how he feels that the clause will work. I have no doubt about his intentions to make it work in the way that all Committee members want it to. I have a tinge of anxiety due to the wording, but I shall not press the amendment.

Ben Wallace: I understand that any Department’s response is made in the name of the Minister of the Crown. There is no third party or lack of liability. Any response, by the lowliest civil servant or the most senior, is made in the name of the Crown. To say that putting “Ministers of the Crown” would delay that process is not logical, because every day questions are put by civil servants to each other in the name of the Minister of the Crown. If I were to say, “The National Consumer Council went not to a Minister, but just to the Ministry of Defence”, the defence from that ministry would be that no one was in charge; the matter just went to the MOD. Surely, we do not need to say “or government department”, just “Minister of the Crown”. That is the accountability trail. I do not understand why that would delay things. How many things happen every day that do not go via the Minister at all, although we know that they are done in the name of the Minister of the Crown?

Ian McCartney: There is a second example, although the one that I gave was legitimate and stands. Some non-ministerial Departments—Ofgem and Ofwat, for example—do not have Ministers. Are we to exclude those? I understand why the hon. Gentleman is making that point, but frankly it belies a lack of knowledge about how Government structures work.

Lorely Burt: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

The information function

Mark Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in clause 10, page 6, line 31, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Michael Weir: With this it will be convenientto discuss amendment No. 11, in clause 10, page 6,line 31, leave out from ‘facilitate’ to end of line 32and insert ‘disseminate advice and information to consumers—’.

Mark Prisk: I should like to deal with the two amendments together and with the arguments at the heart of each of them. The amendments seek to ensure that the new National Consumer Council provides the essential information about its activities and functions to all consumers. We debated earlier the need for openness and the vital function of that transparency if the National Consumer Council is to establish itself as a genuine voice and an advocate, as the Minister put it, for consumers.
At present, the clause merely suggests that the Secretary of State may
“facilitate the dissemination...of advice and information”.
That is a well-meaning phrase, but it feels rather generalised and undirected, could be open to interpretation and will fall short of how I suspect most consumers would expect that new body to function. There is also a danger that, unless there is a clear prescriptive intention, the council and its various component parts—we learned earlier that many of the council’s functions will be delegated down through its territorial and other committees—might not ensure that many key consumer issues are disseminated.
Concerns also extend to the dissemination of information about the council and its functions. As I have argued elsewhere, it is vital that not only is the council open in its functions and operation, but is seen to be open. The Minister has been positive in respect of similar amendments, so I should be interested to hear whether he accepts my points and whether, in doing so, he can provide some assurance.

Ian McCartney: The amendment is very similarto amendment No. 44. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, they have both tabled similar amendments in the Lords during general debate and on Report. I apologise to the Committee if some of the things that I say are similar to what has been said, but I must be consistent in my response to do justice to the amendment.
As we made clear during discussion on amendment No. 44, the new council has been given three statutory core functions, and the amendment relates to the information function. We have a clear expectation that the council will make use of all three functions effectively and transparently. However, the amendment again raises the question of whether we should or will attempt to require the council to undertake all the functions at the same time, or set out its core functions and leave the new body to determine how and when they are exercised according to priority and need and in accordance with its forward work programme.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford raised a fair point, not just intellectually but in practical terms. If we give the council three statutory core functions, what certainty and bottom line will there be? Will it be clear what the three functions are and how they operate? Will someone looking at the work programme be able to say, “Yes, this body is taking seriously all aspects of its functions”? Attached to those functions are two other things: financial resource and human resource. The council must have the capacity to put all three things together transparently.
My point should not be taken in isolation but with all the discussions that we have had on other clauses. They should be pieced together to get the picture. There will be a statutory function, a consultation process for the work programme and consultation and transparency about financial resources and which parts fall to Government and to other appropriate bodies. For those parts that fall to other appropriate bodies, to ensure transparency in the system, those bodies must say how and how effectively those resources are spent, and what their capacity is to meet the budget. The other locks are not just the annual report but the report on how the NCC is carrying out its work programme and its capacity to make determinations when the programme needs to change to meet circumstances.
We have chosen the hon. Gentleman’s second option. We cannot compel the council to discharge the core functions, because the functions do not stand by themselves. We cannot say that the council shall or must provide advice and information without saying to whom and about what it must provide it. The council must make that choice. It goes back in the end to the matter of independence, but independence does not mean an excuse to do nothing, or to turn a blind eye to a blatant injustice for the consumer in the marketplace. 
I have no doubts whatever about how we are establishing the NCC. It will bring together the redress schemes and the panoply of other measures in the Bill. The NCC’s whole sense of direction when established will be that of an advocate, with a strong ethos of acting in the consumer’s interest. I am certain that in all circumstances, it will give the consumer the benefit of the doubt on the issues brought before it, whether policy issues or individual or collective complaints needing redress. It is therefore important that we give the council the opportunity to do so, which is why we have chosen this option.
On amendment No. 11, what we are trying to achieve is the creation of a strong body that can influence and bring about change for the better on consumers’ behalf. We are giving it the right to advocate for individuals or collective groups of consumers where something goes wrong, but we also want to give it as a preventive strategy the ability to influence policy outcomes to ensure that the marketplace operates effectively on the consumer’s behalf, and that those who provide goods and services have an ethos and a way of managing their business that protects the consumer’s interests and not just those of their own organisation. It is important that we provide the opportunity to act on behalf of consumers. To achieve that, there will be certain functions and circumstances in relation to which an autonomous approach can be taken. An example is the new council’s powers under clause 17 to prepare and publish
“a report in relation to any matter falling within the scope of its functions.”
However, the new body also needs to be able to work with and through others. A prime example involves the relationship to consumer education. That is an area in which the Office of Fair Trading has a statutory function under section 6 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to
“publish educational materials or carry out other educational activities”
and to
“support...such activities or the provision by others of information or advice.”
The new council would be expected to contribute to that process with a view to advocating the consumer interest in the provision of education and information by the OFT or other parties. That is very important. It is an innovation. The council will have not only an influence over its own role and remit, but a specific influence over the remit and role of others who have a duty towards consumers. That is vital and is why we have drafted the function as we have. It permits the council not only to facilitate the dissemination of information and advice by others, but to disseminate information itself. That is vital if the council is to be out there and seen there, marching forward on behalf of consumers. The ability is not just to put information out itself, but to ensure that others do so as well. That is innovation.
Amendment No. 11 would remove the ability of the new council to operate in this fashion, which is why I will resist it. I assume that it will not be accepted. I assume that it was tabled to enable me to give the Committee assurances about what the clause means and the role that we expect the NCC to play in operating the clause in a practical way on behalf of consumers.

Mark Prisk: The Minister and I share a view that this debate is about practicalities as much as it is any form of discussion as to the intellectual essence of what the organisation should be. Clearly, in a legislative process, one challenge is how we ensure that what is written in the Bill is put into practice. As the Minister correctly articulated, that is the purpose of these probing amendments.
I had not considered this before the debate—we all learn something every day—but I accept that the collaborative approach would be restrained by amendment No. 11. Clearly, that was not its purpose, so I think that the Minister has raised a very good point. There is a strong argument for the council to be able to work in partnership. We see that later in the Bill. It is an important ethos, not least given the increased complexity of issues in the consumer field. Therefore, the Minister has raised an important issue.
However, the essential point, which I wanted to draw from the Minister and which I am glad he has put on the record, is the key word “expectation”. It is the expectation of the Government that the council will ensure that the functions set out in the Bill are implemented. That is the critical part of the process. I am delighted to hear that put on the record and I am therefore only too pleased to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

General powers of investigation

Mark Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in clause 11, page 7, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The amendment is reasonably straightforward. Its purpose is to seek from the Minister the rationale behind the criteria chosen, rather than necessarily to remove any criteria from being chosen. I have a further point related to that. Will a “novel issue”, which is the term highlighted in the clause, have to be entirely new? One thought that occurred to me was whether, if an issue arose in Scotland and then a similar issue arose in Hertfordshire, it would be determined to be novel, not least given the fact that the two locations have different legal systems. Will the Minister clarify exactly what he means by “novel” and what its limits would be?

Ian McCartney: I will try to give the hon. Gentleman a rational explanation of what we are attempting to achieve with the clause. I accept from the outset that it is a probing amendment, and I hope to give a response to it and to provide the Committee with information that will be helpful in relation to the clause.
Clause 11 will provide the new council with general powers of investigation, and subsection (1)(a) will permit the council to investigate
“a complaint made by or on behalf of a consumer which appears to the Council to raise one or more issues of general relevance”.
A consumer could make a specific complaint on their own behalf and a wider issue could be raised by a general complaint. We need the capacity to deal with wider issues, while dealing with specific issues raised by the individual consumer. In other words, a distinction will be drawn between the investigation of a complaint that may be relevant to consumers generally and an individual complaint. The new council will not have a role in the investigation of individual complaints, other than those made by vulnerable consumers in the designated sectors.
The Bill will provide new and better ways to handle individual complaints and introduce new complaints handling standards, which will be set by the regulators in energy and postal services. It will provide a new redress scheme to determine issues that cannot be resolved by a consumer’s supplier.
On general complaints, subsection (2) empowers the new council to investigate complaints that involve novel issues that affect a group of consumers or consumers generally, or that may have an important effect on a group of consumers or consumers generally. The hon. Gentleman asked what a novel issue will be, and my practical explanation is that, as I said at the outset, it is an issue that is raised in a way that has wider implications for consumers’ rights in the marketplace. Therefore, a judgment will be made ina particular instance about what would affect such changes.

Susan Kramer: I wish to ask for clarification on a point. As the Minister takes us through this helpful discussion of the general powers of investigation, he will be conscious that people’s complaints have been important in exposing general underlying problems, rather than just an isolated problem. Information from complaints has not only been important to the various watchdogs, but to the regulators. Given the proposed change in structure, will the Minister discuss how the information flow that he describes as complaints to or from the National Consumer Council will also transfer, where relevant, to the regulators for their purposes?

Ian McCartney: In that respect, “novel” does indeed mean new, but clause 11 will permit the new council to investigate other issues as well. We are therefore providing the new council with a wide scope, which I am sure that we all want to see, as it will give the council direction when exercising its powers of investigation.
I have heard the assertion that consumers will be stranded by the new arrangements. In the discussions on planning for implementation, the consumer bodies made it clear that they have no consistent means of recording contacts, inquiries and complaints and that they have no means of distinguishing the instances where consumers may be merely referred to companies or elsewhere for assistance. Consequently, consumer bodies have asked my Department to undertake a special project to get to the bottom of that matter, and we have agreed to do so with their assistance. That relates to one of the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about certainty of what the process involves and about learning from the experiences of consumers, the issues that they raise and how best to resolve them.
The project consultants will first review the classification criteria across bodies—for example, contacts, inquiries, complaints, complex complaints and complex inquiries. Secondly, they will identify a set of comparable data between the bodies on volume and type of all contacts. Thirdly, they will map how inquiries and complaints are handled. Fourthly, they will develop recommendations for how designated vulnerable consumers, as defined by the Bill, will be identified across the bodies. Fifthly, they will apply any definition developed to provide a cut of the current data relating to consumers who might be identified as designated vulnerable consumers. It is important to future debates that we can make decisions based on evidence and in a way that is effective for consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers.
The project is currently under way, and I hope that work will be complete by the end of April or the beginning of May. I assure the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Hertford and Stortford that when work is complete, I will brief them on the outcome. From my perspective, I want to provide certainty and an assurance to all concerned in the implementation of the project that no one will be left guessing about the direction that we are taking to set up the new organisation. When it is established, the organisation’s introduction will be phased in, so that everyone—not just consumers, but those who have taken the time to develop the proposal’s structure—can be certain about it. I hope that that explanation helps hon. Members.
The hon. Lady’s legitimate question referred to the implementation strategy, which we will discuss in more detail during a later sitting, when we have more information about this serious matter.

Mark Prisk: It was nice to be provided unexpectedly with an additional piece of information, which I hope that the Minister will send to other members of the Committee. He understandably wished to show his willingness to share the information, but it is important that we all have the chance to deliberate on these matters. I am encouraged to know that work is taking place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Investigation of complaints made by vulnerable designated consumers

Susan Kramer: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 12, page 7, line 18, after ‘vulnerable’, insert ‘or otherwise disadvantaged’.
The clause discusses the investigation of complaints made by vulnerable designated consumers. The opening subsection states:
“Subsection (3) applies to a complaint which is made...by or on behalf of a vulnerable person in that person’s capacity as a designated consumer”.
The amendment would change the word “vulnerable” to “vulnerable or otherwise disadvantaged”.
I have serious concerns about the subjectivity of the use of the word “vulnerable” as a definition, as it is not a word that is widely and commonly used and there is not a wide and common understanding of it. There is an attempt to define it in subsection (2), which states:
“For this purpose a person is ‘vulnerable’ if the Council is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect that person to pursue the complaint on that person’s own behalf.”
Again, that is an extremely subjective set of judgments. There is not a lot of history to it and most people might very much disagree about whether they are part of that vulnerable community. Honest people and those of integrity and judgment could disagree about whether they fell into that category.
We therefore propose not the removal of the word “vulnerable” but the addition of the word “disadvantaged”, about which there is a much broader sense of understanding. People on low incomes, older people and those with a range of disabilities would understand themselves to fall within the disadvantaged category. I feel that “vulnerable” is a fairly insulting notion, because it suggests that someone is short on the ability to understand or to be capable, when it might simply be that they find it difficult to exercise their rights, which can certainly be true.
We want to ensure that the category includes the people whom we recognise more typically as disadvantaged. We discussed a proposal, tabled by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, that had a much fuller listing of groups that I would have called vulnerable or disadvantaged, but which have disappeared from the set of definitions in the clause. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the issue and to have at least some reassurance that the intent of the clause and its language is to cover the group that we would consider to be disadvantaged, not to provide the opportunity for a very much narrower set of definitions, which is how I fear some will interpret the clause.

Ian McCartney: What I shall say about the amendment is in addition to what I said in previous discussions and to what I will say in other discussions that we will have on the matter. I accept what the hon. Lady said about language. It is indeed of critical importance, but the amendment would not produce more appropriate language than is in the Bill, and I shall explain why. In the end, it is down to what we are trying to achieve in practical terms and, importantly, for whom.
Some examples are provided in the explanatory notes, but even those examples represent a huge, diverse community of people who, for different reasons, will require the support of advocacy bodies. In addition, the organisations that provide postal, water, gas and electricity services, whether supply or distribution, will be required to make changes to their complaints processes to ensure that they can deal effectively with the issues raised by vulnerable consumers. They must be accountable.
I hope that what I say will reassure the hon. Lady. I want to give an example of the activities that are now taking place because of campaigning by the NCCand other organisations that represent a range of consumers who have not special needs, but needs that require appropriate responses and resources to ensure that there are effective opportunities to resolve the issues that affect them in the provision of goods or services. I hope that I am able, through my remarks, to build further confidence in what we want to achieve through the NCC and by encouraging and building on cultural and organisational change in the organisations that provide the goods and services.
Any list of specific examples of vulnerability carries a high risk of leaving out a group of consumers who could be provided with much-needed assistance by the new council. Instead, the Bill leaves it to the new council’s discretion to assist consumers who are in need of assistance. The addition of the words “or otherwise disadvantaged” simply would not add anything worth while to the meaning of the provision.
Clause 12(2) provides that, for the purposes of the clause, a person is vulnerable
“if the Council is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect that person to pursue the complaint on that person’s own behalf.”
The vulnerability may be of a long-term or a short-term nature. For example, grief can so overwhelm a person when a close relative dies that they are incapable of dealing with aspects of their life, including issues around gas, electricity, water, postage and so on. They need help, too. I doubt that it would be possible to find a legal, technical definition for what we are attempting to do by including someone like that. The debilitating loss of a loved one and the physical and emotional consequences affect hundreds and thousands of people in Britain each month.
There will be people who end up during the course of a complaint with a disability because of a trauma. There must be the ability between the opening up of a complaint and the resolving of it to ensure that an individual whose circumstances change is treated appropriately. That cannot be expressed in legislation in the way that has been suggested.
The language is important. Wide discretion is not discretion to do nothing; it is discretion to try to maximise the pool of opportunity for those who need support and assistance for whatever reason, and it is important that we view it in that way. The Bill does not go any further in defining what “vulnerable” means, because there are many ways in which consumers can be vulnerable. It will provide the necessary flexibility for the council to examine cases with the benefitof increasing understanding of what constitutes vulnerability in any given circumstance.
I wish to give the hon. Lady an assurance. There is a challenge here, is there not? Going back to my earlier remarks, the challenge is to ensure that we have the knowledge base and the skill sets so that at the point of contact, the individual concerned is dealt with with dignity, respect and understanding of the issues in their life that will affect their advocacy opportunities. That is why, for example, the Energy Retail Association has a complaints charter, and we need to examine such good practice and involve it in the new NCC. For example, the ERA has a support strategy to try to ensure that no vulnerable customer is disconnected from their energy supply, in accordance with ERA guidelines. It is now trying to train staff specifically to handle complaints and provide staff specifically trained to deal with vulnerable customers, and senior managers are empowered to resolved disputes on behalf of vulnerable customers.
The matter is not just about the role of the NCC. It goes back to another point that I made earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill: it is about changing the structure and the way in which companies operate in the relevant sectors, so that they operate effectivelyon behalf of the consumer and recognise their responsibility. The impact if they fail to do so will be that they end up in a redress situation. I am certain that in those circumstances the redress schemes will be effective. I cannot think of a company that wants to spend its time getting a bad name because of how it deals with consumers and seeing tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds a month leaving its coffers because it acts inappropriately towards disadvantaged consumers. There is a big emphasis on their gettingit right—prevention as part of the cure. It is also important that there is a process for learning from mistakes and sharing best practice.
We must improve the skill mix and capacity for the system to work effectively, and I give the hon. Lady the assurance that part of the process of implementation will be about that, to ensure that the commitments given in the clause can be implemented practically in people’s day-to-day experiences. I believe that that is what the hon. Lady is on about—giving certainty to consumers’ day-to-day experiences when they have an interface with the NCC, the companies concerned and the redress scheme. That is important, and I accept what she says. I hope that, with those assurances, she will be able to accept what I am saying.
Amendment No. 47 would add to the word “vulnerable” the words “or otherwise disadvantaged”. Again, that is not necessary. As I said, any list of examples of vulnerability carries the risk of leaving out a particular individual or group of consumers.
I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that I have genuinely tried to set out the ethos of what we want to do; the challenges that we face in doing it; the training and improvement that we need in the skill mix so that the NCC can act as advocate, and the role that companies need to play by changing. Some have to change dramatically, and I have no doubt that the redress schemes will change the landscape dramatically. It will no longer be a matter of shrugging one’s shoulders and saying, “Well, we’ll get to that complaint. Sorry, it won’t happen again.” There will be an obligation on all in the system to make it operate effectively and to ensure that for anyone who has a disadvantage, for whatever reason, we have the ability, skills and ethos in the organisation to deal effectively with their issues.
I turn to a final point that I believe is important to the hon. Lady and is also important to me as a Minister. It is inevitable when a new organisation is established that there will be a problem with working it in and getting it established, up and working. No organisation has ever been created and from day one operated at 100 per cent. effectiveness. I do not wish to make an excuse in advance, and the implementation strategy is to make the organisation as effective as we can from day one. It is therefore important in the process of implementing the strategy that we havethe capacity to consider thoroughly how to ensure that the commitments given in the clause work effectively. The experience that the clause is intended to create is an effective one on behalf of those with a disadvantage.
Again, I will be happy during the implementation stage after the Bill has become an Act to be as transparent and open as I can. I give another commitment that the new body will consult not only Ministers but those who represent people out in the community who have specific needs. It is important to build such partnerships. There are skills and knowledge out there that need to be utilised and developed.
In giving that assurance, I return to another point, which will be my final one. We are not only giving it a duty to provide information but a research duty, and part of that research must surely be for the organisation, in representing consumers, to be able to look to whether or where improvements can take place in a quite transparent, honest and effective way. This is one area that, if Members do not mind me saying so, is like building the Forth road bridge. Once we start the process of change then, on a step-by-step and ongoing basis, we will see the ability to right the wrongs that have gone on for many years in the public and private sectors—a failure to provide proper advocacy and other services for disadvantaged individuals and groups. When something goes wrong, it is always those who are disadvantaged that end up the poorer, whether it is a public service, or a service provided by the private sector for the public one, or a private sector provider of goods and services who does not do it appropriately.
This is an important area, which we will build on. There will be an ongoing process of learning and improvement for the organisation and the role that it plays next year, the year after and the one after again, in effecting services on the part of people who are disadvantaged. I hope that my comments will reassure the hon. Lady, at least to the point that we are in the same game and want to achieve the same objectives so that, in a practical way, the experiences that disadvantaged people have had in the past will not be repeated in future.

Susan Kramer: I appreciate the robust definitions that the Minister has given of people who should perhaps fall within this vulnerable category, and who could look for support and help from the National Consumer Council. I will give way by withdrawing the amendment, but in terms of the underlying sentiment the Minister should be aware of some of the difficulties around the language.
I will give an example; I have a constituent with a severe speech impediment, and when he attempts to contact me on the phone, it is a long and difficult process to understand what he is telling me. I am sure that he would be considered “vulnerable” in the eyes of this definition. If we were to look into his face and tell him that he was vulnerable, he would be utterly insulted. He would regard himself as disadvantaged by society, but would not see himself as falling into that category of helplessness that one calls “vulnerable”. That is a point frequently missed in the kinds of language and definitions that we use, so I feel strongly that it would be wise to look at this again.
However, I fully accept what the Minister says—that this is in a process in motion, as it were, and that change will come over a period of time. He has provided some extensive reassurances that the use of “vulnerable” is not an attempt to narrow but to broaden. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Susan Kramer: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in clause 12, page 7, line 30, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
This amendment may seem among the tiniest that could be found, but it is a crucial one. We are looking now at subsection 3 of clause 12, which reads,
“Where a complaint to which this subsection applies is referred to the Council by or on behalf of the designated consumer, the Council may investigate the complaint for the purpose of determining whether it is appropriate to take any action under subsection (4)”.
We feel strongly that of all the places where “may” is inappropriate—and where “shall” should be inserted—this one is overwhelmingly important, because this is about any requirement on the NCC to follow through and deal with individual complaints from the kind of vulnerable consumers that we have just discussed.
Earlier, when my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull raised the issue of changing the word “may” to “shall”, when looking at the various duties of the NCC, the Minister gave an extremely enlightening reply that, regarding this clause, was exceedingly worrying. I do not have it verbatim but he was saying, in effect, that it is necessary for the NCC to have flexibility within its work programme function not to carry out an activity perhaps to the fullest extent. There had to be regard to the way that money was spent, and to funding.
I must say that, in this area, where we are talking about vulnerable customers—someone identified under the definition as “vulnerable” and therefore in need of support—to turn around and say that there is any possible scenario in which they cannot rely on the NCC to take their case forward—we are only talking about taking it forward to the point of investigation, and we are not saying that the NCC must carry this right the way through to get a resolution, because they are not even required to give advice or whatever, just to determine whether or not an investigation would be appropriate—it seems to me that there should be no possibility that a person could hear the word “no” in that kind of instance.
So I say to the Minister that, although I understand that he is concerned about independence, it seems to me that there must be a necessary balance here. People who are highly vulnerable need to know that the advocate is there for them, and there for sure. Therefore, to put in a provision for the independent council to decide that, in some cases, or in all cases, or in a percentage of cases, or after a certain number of cases have been reported in the year, or whatever else, that it need not exercise this particular set of roles is exceedingly worrying.
I am responding to the comments that the Minister made, that flexibility is required; here is a case where flexibility should not be required. I ask the Minister to reconsider in this instance, and to recognise, by character, that it is different from the other instances where we have raised what sounds like a similar issue, but this issue, by all measures, is far more important.

Ian McCartney: An advocacy organisation is best judged by its effectiveness, by the decisions that it makes at the outset, when it receives a complaint, as to the appropriate place where that complaint should be taken, and who has the responsibility to take it to that point and ensure that the complaint is dealt with in a relevant way.
That is why I think that the amendment is not particularly helpful for consumers in general and vulnerable consumers in particular. That is because there will be occasions when the complaint is not best dealt with by the NCC, but by someone else, because it is their responsibility. What the clause seeks to do is to ensure that, whatever access the consumer makes, at that access point someone takes responsibility to assist them and not simply say: “Not ours, Guv’. Go somewhere else. Look up Yellow Pages, but it’s not us. Go to the CAB, but it’s not us.” I do not think thatthat approach is reasonable or right. Therefore it is important that the new council must consider complaints from vulnerable consumers and assess whether those complaints should be investigated by the council or should be referred to another party better placed to resolve the issue.
In the end, what is the bottom line here? When a complaint is made, the bottom line is to ensure that it is accessed at the right point to be resolved, and hopefully resolved to the benefit of the consumer. For example, a breach of a license condition would be better dealt with by the appropriate regulator, not by the NCC, as set out in clauses 14 or 15. Those clauses allow the new council to refer matters to Ofgem or Postcomm, ifit considers that the regulators should use their enforcement powers to remedy the problem.

Susan Kramer: I appreciate the Minister giving way. Let me read again the measure—clause 12(3)—that I am referring to. It says:
“Where a complaint to which this subsection applies is referred to the Council by or on behalf of the designated consumer, the Council may investigate the complaint for the purpose of determining whether it is appropriate to take any action”.
In other words, we are even using the word “may” about whether or not the complaint should be sent off to another body, or retained within the NCC. The clause does not say that the council must carry the process out to the far end. There is not even an obligation on the council to decide whether the matter is one with which it should deal or one that should go somewhere else. The case that the Minister is making relates to the step afterwards—after the “shall” has taken place, so I question whether he really intends that “may” should stand, at least within the meaning ofthe Bill.

Ian McCartney: I can see where the hon. Ladyis coming from, but she is misconstruing the Government’s intention. There is no point in having an advocacy body and yet giving it a bureaucratic obligation to deal with matters that should be dealt with by some other body that has the appropriate powers. Nor would it be right to create a body under the clause which could opt out and say, “This has nothing to do with us.” The proposals must be seen practically. The NCC is an advocacy body, and we are trying to ensure certainty that, when complaints are made, an assessment will be made of the best body to deal with them—based on the statutory reasons, or reasons of skill, or a mixture of both—so that they are directed where they should go. That is important.
We see that type of process all the time in our capacity as MPs. Every day, people come to our offices as advocates, and our staff have to make an assessment. If we want to be friendly with everyone and give a good impression, we say, “Don’t worry, I will deal with this complaint”, and they leave feeling happy. But two days or two weeks later they come back and say, “What happened to my complaint?” Our staff system is not designed to deal with complaints in that way—our job is to be advocates on behalf of our constituents.
The same point applies in relation to the clause in a broad sense. We need the most appropriate person: first, to advocate; secondly to resolve; and thirdly to remedy. If a remedy cannot be found, there should be redress. That is why it is important to deal with things in the way that we are proposing.
If Ofgem can use its powers of determination over connection changes to the distribution network, it should do so, but when the matter is best dealt with by agreement between Postcomm and the council, it should be dealt with in that way. The most important consideration is to ensure that the arrangements provide greatest ease of use by consumers.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park agrees with that position, and her objective is the same as mine. She just does not believe that the clause goes far enough. However, ultimately, the question is not just one of the words on paper. I keep coming back to the point that the question is also one of organisational ethos, skills, structure, advocacy and the ability to give effective representation. When users come forward, they should be signposted to the appropriate people. That is why the provision is framed in the way it is.
I should not ask the hon. Lady to trust me—that would not be fair. She is acting as a legitimate advocate. However, I seek to reassure her on the basis thatthe legislation is not drafted on a minimalist but a maximalist approach.
Let me be controversial. An advocacy organisation can be effective only if part of its advocacy role includes telling people, “You ain’t got a case”, or telling people that their case should be dealt with somewhere else. That is fine, as long as the quality of the relationship between the advocacy organisation and the other body is made clear. There should be relationships to ensure that individuals who enter the complaints process and initially go to the wrong organisation are directed by that organisation to the right place. That is what the clause is about and I assure the hon. Lady that that is what we are trying to achieve.

Lorely Burt: I apologise if I am stretching the Minister’s extensive good will and patience. He just said that the organisation must be able to tell people the truth about whether their complaints can be resolved. Surely, however, they cannot do that unless they have investigated the complaint. All that my hon. Friend and I are trying to obtain from the Minister is an assurance that when a complaint comes forward, somebody will have to assess whether the individual has a valid complaint. I think that that is what the Minister is saying and I would be grateful if he would confirm that.

Ian McCartney: I went over and over that point and I do not want to labour it. I repeat that the clause has to be seen in connection with clauses 14 and 15. If those building blocks are put together, we will have an effective process for dealing with the individuals whose interests the hon. Lady has been advocating.

Susan Kramer: I thank the Minister. He is right to say that he and I have exactly the same intentions for the Bill. Having those intentions emphatically repeated on the record is exceedingly helpful. I still think that the drafting of the Bill is in error, however. It does not reflect the statement that the Minister just made. I hope that his drafting team will take an opportunity to examine the language; I think that they have fallen into the trap of using “may” automatically as they work through the Bill, and have not recognised that they are dealing with a clause of a different character. From everything that the Minister has said, it seems thathis intention would be for the NCC to consider a vulnerable customer’s complaint to see whether it is appropriate to pursue it.
I hope very much that the issue will not be dropped by the drafting team. As the Minister’s intention was so clearly stated, however, and because I know that there is no possibility of winning on this issue as we have no support from others in this House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Investigation of complaints relating to disconnection of gas or electricity

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 13, page 8, line 3, after ‘transporter’, insert
‘, or there appears to the Council to be a reasonable probability of such a threat being made’.

Michael Weir: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 50, in clause 13, page 8, line 9, after ‘supplier’, insert
‘, or there appears to the Council to be a reasonable probability of such a threat being made’.
No. 51, in clause 13, page 8, line 18, after ‘holder’, insert
‘, or there appears to the Council to be a reasonable probability of such a threat being made’.

Lorely Burt: With these amendments, we seek to extend the powers where the council feels that there is a reasonable possibility of a threat of disconnection being made. They are probing amendments, in that we want to ascertain from the Minister what constitutesa threat, bearing in mind that the process of disconnection can be quite long. If one receives a letter saying that one may be disconnected if the bill is not paid following a missed payment, does that constitute a threat? A lot of utility companies use low-level threats early on in the process, which can lead to a great deal of emotional distress to the many vulnerable—dare I say it?—customers who often receive such threats. By vulnerable I mean elderly people and people whoare used to a straightforward relationship with the company to which they make their bill payments, who can receive a letter threatening to disconnect them if the matter is not resolved. The companies can start to issue threats at an early stage. I should like to know the stage at which the Minister feels that the reasonable probability of disconnection constitutes a threat to the individual.

Ian McCartney: Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 would change the scope of the new council’s duty to investigate disconnection or the threat of disconnection of a consumer’s gas or electricity supply, to cover the circumstances in which there would be a reasonable probability that a threat to disconnect would be made. What constitutes a threat? That varies from supplier to supplier. Some mention disconnection at a very early stage; some do so at a very late stage and allow the consumer to build up a considerable backlog of debt. It is important that the new council should use its discretion on the issue to ensure a security of supply in almost all circumstances. Without that, other problems will arise. It is important that those who deal with such complaints do so with regard to the circumstances.
I shall give an example of something that regularly happens to me as a constituency MP. Someone makes contact and says that they are being threatened with disconnection. First, how do they know that they have been threatened? Have they received a notice? What form does the threat take? They say, “Well, I haven’t paid my bill.” There needs to be more than that. There has to be a linkage; if there is not, all that will happen is a huge paper chase. We have to use advocates who are specifically able to deal with people who are vulnerable to disconnection or a threat to disconnect. Such advocates’ resources and time should be usedto secure an arrangement that gives effect to the continuation of supply for the vulnerable consumer.
The amendments are not needed. A threat to disconnect is already covered in clause 13(1), which obliges the council to investigate a complaint to decide on the appropriate action to avoid disconnection, when appropriate. The amendments would place an undue burden on the council, which would have to assess in the case of each complaint whether there was a reasonable probability of a threat to disconnect. No risk assessment would have to be made; no evidence would have to be provided—only someone making contact and saying, “I may be at risk.” That would take up a disproportionate amount of time, which would, as I said, be more usefully employed in investigating complaints about actual or threatened disconnection on the basis of evidence that such a thing existed under clause 13(1).
If vulnerable consumers were fearful that a threat to disconnect might have been made, they would be covered by the provisions in clause 12, which empowers the new council to investigate any matter concerning gas, electricity, postal services—and, in future, water—when the consumer is vulnerable. Accepting the amendments would offer no benefits to general consumers. The hon. Member for Solihull tabled them—the phrase “belt and braces” comes to mind—to ensure that in all circumstances, irrespective of any evidence, the NCC should put resources at the disposal of the person concerned. I do not agree with that; that is not the role of an advocacy body.
 For example, if someone simply made contact with the supplier and said, “I have had a phone call telling me that you are going to disconnect.” How many calls would have to be made, and what proportion would state that disconnection was going to take place? The relevant NCC advocate may have to deal with 50or 60 actual disconnections; I should rather they concentrated on them than on those who have no evidence whatever other than a concern or fear. I do not criticise people with concerns or fears but there needs to be an ability in the system to make a proper risk assessment and use the resources effectively, particularly for those who are under threat of disconnection and require advocacy to make sure that it does not happen.

Stephen Pound: My right hon. Friend makes a telling point about how a bill could build up. I consider British Gas to lead the market on the ethical approach. Typically, it takes 140 days to disconnect following non-payment. It writes an average of 10 letters; as a result, the total number of gas customers disconnected by British Gas in 2006 was three. The system exists, and surely the NCC should oversee that, rather than, as my right hon. Friend so strongly said, provide a belt and braces system.

Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes an excellent point. As I said at the outset, the whole purpose is to change the culture of the organisations that provide the goods and services. That is a preventive strategy. The more preventive our strategy is, the less need there is for resources for intervention.
Intervention is a sign of failure. It is important that the providers—in this instance energy suppliers—have an effective process for engaging with their vulnerable consumers. If a consumer, vulnerable or otherwise, gets into difficulties with the payment for their supply, a decision-making process in the organisation’s ethos should help to prevent disconnection. The skills, knowledge and experience are needed within the organisation to act and advocate on behalf of the consumer on that basis. Only when that fails should the NCC be brought into play. It should not be the first and only port of call. After a year of the system operating in that way, we would end up with far more disconnections. The hon. Lady’s intentions are good, but the reality is that the amendment would act against vulnerable consumers, rather than for them.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification and to the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who cited examples of good practice. If procedures are carried out in a caring and effective way, disconnection should rarely need to take place. I hope that other utility companies will take note and adopt the practices that he described.
The purpose of the amendments is to understand just what the Government mean by a threat to disconnect and to know at what stage the NCC would intervene in proceedings. I am not entirely sure that I am any clearer on that. If the Minister wants to come back to me again, I should be grateful. Nevertheless, he made a fair point and was very reasonable. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Susan Kramer: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in clause 13, page 9, line 22, after ‘payment’, insert ‘, or
‘(iii) A failure of an authorised supplier to recalibrate a repayment meter at the consumer’s premises within one month of any change in tariffs charged by that supplier for supply of gas or electricity.’.
This amendment attempts to address the failure of some power companies to recalibrate pre-payment meters in a timely way, thereby forcing an exceedingly onerous debt on to the individual who has been the innocent victim of the delay in recalibration. Most people who choose to have a pre-payment meter do so because they are on a pretty low income and are determined to manage their money sensibly. They want to know where their pennies are going and how much is being spent on heating, cooking and so on, and they are careful not to exceed their budget.
In the past year, individuals on very low incomes have found that, because of delays in recalibration, they face debts of £400 or £600—amounts that are completely beyond their means. Most people who are on token meters are on incomes of less than £10,000 a year. Even the smallest debt is therefore extremely burdensome. We have also discussed these issues in Westminster Hall, and it is clear from my discussions with Energywatch that people on pre-payment meters probably pay around £180 more a year for the privilege of giving a risk-free pre-payment to an electricity company, compared with someone who might be on a direct debit scheme. These people already carry a high burden.
We are also aware that the utility companies could deal with the problem in one fell swoop by switching over to smart metering. However, there have been such delays in instigating that sort of programme thatthey frequently have to go door to door to recalibrate meters.
Some utility companies are responsible for how they handle recalibration: if there are delays, they do not force the charge to fall on the individual consumer. We should congratulate Scottish and Southern Energy and EDF Energy on such matters. British Gas has recently changed its scheme, so that it no longer charges back payments to people who would, in effect, owe money because of a deferment in the recalibration. However, Scottish Power, npower and Powergen continue with their systems of back charges. We have crafted an amendment to hang a threat over those companies that still take what I consider to be an entirely socially unacceptable position, although I must admit that we are trying to shoehorn it into the Bill.
We are working into the disconnection language a new paragraph (iii) that would treat as a disconnection a failure
“of an authorised supplier to recalibrate a repayment meter at the consumer’s premises within one month of any change in tariffs charged by that supplier for supply of gas or electricity.”
One month might sound a fairly cruel timetable, but frankly, the companies have been behaving in a cruel manner. Since they have not, through exhortation, changed their practice, it will take threat for them to do so, and the Bill looks like the perfect opportunity to introduce it.

Tom Clarke: I have no great desire to delay the Committee unduly, but the hon. Lady referred tothe debate in Westminster Hall that I initiated. Incidentally, by moving the amendment, she is doing a great service to those who suffer from the problems that were raised at the time, although I look forward to hearing the response of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
As the hon. Lady has done, it is important to register the fact that the problem is extremely serious. I am not convinced that Ofgem has such powers or, if it has, is willing to use them when inevitably the poorest people who are obliged to use pre-payment meters are placed in the position in which they suffer from the decision of companies that refuse to pass on the reductions in wholesale prices by way of reducing retail prices overa lengthy period, thus putting consumers at a big disadvantage. If those consumers happen to be people on pre-payment meters and are subjected to back payments, it is wholly unacceptable.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister agrees that the problem must be put right. The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned several companies such as Scottish Power. We who represent Lanarkshire constituencies wrote to all the companies, including Scottish Power, on this and other issues. The response was a long letter that we took to mean that such matters were none of our business. A week or so after we received it, Scottish Power, having ensured that its shareholders had the benefits of the reductions in wholesale prices, decided to sell out to the Spaniards, and where were the consumers, including those that the amendment would cover?
I met Ofgem. It knew that I was not satisfied with the response. Given the robust nature of the Minister’s contributions this afternoon, I shall leave the sitting with far greater hope that such issues are being dealt with. Consumers, particularly those who experience enormous difficulty because of gas and electricity prices to the extent that the amendment addresses, will consider that there is a body that sees its responsibility not simply as a supplier to companies, but one that feels an obligation to them. I am sure that, if we agree by the end of our sitting to insist that those responsible for advocating and defending the rights of consumers should show that they have teeth and are prepared to use them, the Minister will respond in that light.

Stephen Pound: Like many people, I find myself being seduced by the hon. Member for Richmond Park—intellectually, I hasten to add; she is a woman of taste as well as intellect. However, she has conflated two issues, the first of which is the weighting of the tariff on pre-payment charges. That is undoubtedly an injustice, and there can be no more powerful advocate against it than my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. However, she suggests—it is implicit in the amendment—not the abolition of pre-payment but recalibration within a fixed time, which she referred to as being cruel. The problem is that every company would like to have its systems recalibrated. All modern meters are capable of remote updating, and that is what people want. However, not everyone who uses a pre-payment system is on his uppers. Some people with second homes find it a convenient way to pay.
The chief issue is practicality. If we in the House were to say, “Something shall be done within four weeks,” we might feel a warm glow of satisfaction that we had achieved something. However, what would it mean in practice? In most cases, entry warrants would have to be issued by magistrates courts up and down the country. I do not know what it is like in your constituency, Mr. Weir, but I know some parts of Scotland. The distant but ’n bens on the borders ofthe berry fields are probably hard to get to. In my constituency, we are not always over-welcoming to those who call in the tower blocks at the dead of night. [Interruption.] They might be Liberal Democrat canvassers. One cannot be too careful nowadays. Ultimately, recalibration will be resolved by technology; remote updating is happening. It is not practical to say that we must provide new meters across the nation within a month.
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady—something I would always prefer to do—about good and bad practice. She referred to British Gas. I do not think that any of us has a financial interest in British Gas except, as in my case, as an extremely satisfied consumer. However, its announcement last year that it would not recover any underpayments identified as a result of recalibration was an extraordinarily generous and ethical step to take. It should be congratulated on that. 
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister—although it is against his nature, because he is a warm and welcoming person and a man who believes in the henotic qualities of office—to resist the amendment, not because of its spirit, as it flows from a warm heart, but because of its sheer impracticality. It would be impossible in most constituencies for every consumer to allow access for recalibration—there are millions of them. Ofgem has accepted that point. We have not been terribly kind to it, but it should be given credit when that is due, and it has said that it would prefer to see a system under which the utility suppliers use
“all reasonable steps to ensure that the meter is reset within a reasonable time after a price change.”
There will not be a problem in future thanks to remote updating, but for the moment, the practicalities make the amendment impossible to sustain. I hope, reluctant though he will undoubtedly be, that my right hon. Friend the Minister will resist the warm blandishments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park on this occasion, though perhaps not onevery one.

Michael Weir: I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that his but ’n bens are under gas supply.

Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North could be described as the original gas man, given how he has tried to position himself.
In respect of the hon. Member for Solihull and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, we are discussing a number of issues, all of which are important. One is whether or not people with a pre-payment meter should be disadvantaged, when people such as myself—I have arrangements to pay both here in London and in my constituency—can get a reduction in cost by paying in advance. The amendment is about the recalibration of pre-payment meters and whether that should be a role for the NCC in all circumstances.
It is critical in structures dealing with consumer issues that the responsibility should lie in appropriate places. The appropriate place for this issue is with Ofgem, the regulator. Ofgem has completed its consultation on proposed licence changes for timely recalibration. The consultation ended on 2 March, and I am advised that Ofgem will be publishing its proposals later this month.
To avoid interfering in Ofgem’s administrative affairs, and given the strength of feeling in today’s discussion, my officials or I will approach Ofgem to seek certainty about whether the proposal will be announced before the end of the Committee’s proceedings. If so, it might be helpful for Committee members to have those proposals before them. I cannot guarantee it, nor am I putting any pressure on Ofgem, but given the nature of today’s debate and its consequences on discussion of the clause, it might well be appropriate. I will do that tomorrow, or my officials will do it on my behalf. Using Ofgem is the right way forward, rather than adding to the list of complaints that the new council must investigate. It will mean that the cause of the problem is being tackled directly, as it should be, by the regulator.
The second and more general issue is about fairness and individual companies’ attitude to pre-payment meters. The new council will be able to consider whether further action is required on pre-payment meters because we are giving it general powers of investigation under clause 11 that will permit it to carry out full investigations. It will be appropriate in some areas for the NCC to investigate and make recommendations, and we should separate those from the regulator’s obligations. The council will also have powers under clause 8 to represent consumer interests. Clause 10 will provide for information to consumers. The Bill is about putting all the building blocks together.
In light of my explanations, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment. We have provided the certainty that we will await Ofgem’s proposals and see whether they will be in the public domain beforethe end of this Committee’s proceedings, as well as assurances that within the contexts of clauses 8, 10 and 11, the new NCC will have the capacity to consider general issues of complaints about pre-payment meters. I hope that that addresses the complaints on behalf of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill has so readily, enthusiastically and capably been advocating for a considerable time now.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is immensely helpful. Will he do me one further favour? I understand that he will be in Scotland on Thursday. He might have the opportunity to inform BBC Scotland that the initiative arose from this Parliament and that it therefore might not feel the need to interview loose Members of another establishment.

Ian McCartney: I shall not be in Scotland on Thursday. Much as I would like to be Scotland on Thursday, I shall be in another part of the United Kingdom. I shall be in Wigan and in my constituency to deal with a family issue and to attend an event as a Member of Parliament. I apologise to the Committee for that, and I also apologise to my hon. Friend for not being in bonnie Scotland, but his point is well made. Scotland has benefited twice in the Bill today, first, from the overall general direction of the NCC in representing Scottish consumers and, secondly, from the capacity to devolve to Scotland the ability to have an advocacy body on a day-to-day basis to represent particular aspects of Scottish consumer issues. This Government have delivered that with the tacit support, obviously, of the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives have now ended their isolation—[Interruption.]

Michael Weir: Order. I think the Minister is straying away from the amendment.

Ian McCartney: I wondered how long it would take you to object, Mr. Weir, but I apologise.
This is unfair to a colleague in the Committee, because he is neutral for these purposes and not political. I will not withdraw my remarks, but will bring them to a conclusion. I will not even say, “Vote Labour in the Scottish elections.”
With the assurances that I have given—

Sharon Hodgson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the problems with pre-payment meters, especially for those on low incomes, is that if they are recalibrated late people are often self-disconnected because of debts that have built up through no fault of their own? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill that a month may be too short, and when it is extended, people may be self-disconnected. Although the number of those who are cut off is now very low, the number who are self-disconnected could be immeasurable.

Ian McCartney: Yes, I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and I am sure that Ofgem has taken that into account in its consultation. I can only repeat that I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment and that before the Committee completes its deliberations Ofgem’s recommendations will be in the public domain.

Susan Kramer: No one knows more about these issues than the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and his Westminster Hall debate highlighted them at a critical time. Energywatch played an important role in ensuring that the facts about pre-payment and the debts that resulted from delayed calibration got into the public arena.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her reference to me, and I endorse what she said about Energywatch.
As a matter of interest, my constituency is Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. I am sure that the Committee would want to reflect on the fact that those in Bellshill rejoice in the knowledge that it is the birthplace of Matt Busby, Billy McNeill and one of our most distinguished parliamentarians, the late Robin Cook.

Susan Kramer: How can I forget a place that has such a character connected with it?
I want to make the point that Energywatch played a key role in ensuring that the facts were drawn to public attention and that they were a major issue. I suspect that that was a key reason for Ofgem, which had looked the other way for some time while the problems were boiling and bubbling, finally taking the matter on board. I am delighted to hear that there is a possibility that we will have advance notice of Ofgem’s conclusions in time to be able to incorporate them into the Committee’s thinking and process.
I recognise that we were attempting to shoehorn in an amendment that is perhaps not entirely appropriate to this part of the Bill or its character, but it has had an important result, and I seriously appreciate that.

Ben Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Weir. When we were discussing clause 8 and amendments Nos. 44 to 46, the Minister rather cruelly indicated that my lack of knowledge of non-ministerial departments was demonstrated by the fact that I was trying to saythat Ministers of the Crown were answerable forall Government Departments, which the Minister disputed. I have managed to get from the Cabinet its published list of non-ministerial departments. There are 19 at the moment, but there might be more, although the Assets Recovery Agency has been abolished. Interestingly enough—the Committee might like to know this—one of the non-ministerial departments, UK Trade and Investment, belongs to the Minister himself and is directly answerable to this House through his office. All non-ministerial departments are answerable to Parliament through a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, given that the Minister is not returning on Thursday, would he like to take this opportunity to reflect on his comments and his reasoning as to why there was a need to include all Government Departments in clause 8?

Michael Weir: Order. This is not really a point of order—it is an attempt to re-open the debate that we had earlier. We will move on.

Susan Kramer: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Steve McCabe.]

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 19 April at Nine o’clock.